Home › › Page 8

Search Results For: 271(1)(c)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 10, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C/ 271(1)(c): Even if s. 50C is applicable, computing capital gain de hors it does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

The Assessing Officer has not given any finding that the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee is not actual amount received as per the agreement of sale. The addition was made by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C whereby the full value of consideration was adopted as per the valuation of the stamp duty authority for levy of stamp duty. The assessee has disclosed all relevant details as well as documents in support of its computation of Short term Capital Gain by taking into consideration the actual sale consideration received by the assessee. Consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 1, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 7, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): If the High Court admits the appeal u/s 260A, it means that the issue is debatable and penalty cannot survive

When the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has admitted substantial question of law on the addition, it becomes apparent that the addition so made has become debatable. The penalty was imposed on the basis of addition so made, therefore, when the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed has become doubtful/debatable, therefore, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 4 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 11, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 1, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1986-87
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) & 273(2)(a): Penalty cannot be mechanically levied. Cogent reasons have to be given

Sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(a) empower the AO to impose penalty on an assessee in a case, where, (1) there is concealment of income or (2) conscious attempt to provide the particulars of income which is untrue. Meaning thereby, the AO …

Amrut Tubewell Company vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 4 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 24, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 27, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Before proceeding to the Explanation below s. 271 and putting the responsibility on the assessee, it is necessary for the AO to first demonstrate that the assessee's explanation or conduct is not reasonable on human probabilities, or that it was in the nature of violating settled legal positions. If the explanation is not fanciful, baseless or unacceptable, penalty cannot be levied

A legal contention raised bonafide by the assessee claiming the amounts to be capital receipt, only because the same was not accepted, by itself cannot be said to be act of fraud or gross or wilful negligence. Merely because the …

CIT vs. Rucha Engineers Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 16, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1992-93
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): In the absence of a clear-cut finding by the AO as to whether it is a case of 'concealment' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars', penalty cannot be levied

it is incumbent upon the AO to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income have been furnished by the assessee. In the absence …

Mitsu Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 19, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied solely on the basis of admission made during survey if there is no corroborative evidence & no fault is found with the return of income

Though the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 1 crore during the survey on account of discrepencies, errors and omissions in the accounts, at the stage of the assessment, there is no reference to any incriminating material found during the …

ACIT vs. Crescent Property Developers (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 3 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 12, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 14, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty initiated without specifying whether it is for concealment or for furnishing inaccurate particulars it invalid

(i) It is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to state whether penalty was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished by the assessee. There are two …

DCIT vs. Nepa Limited (ITAT Indore) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 3 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 14, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied for a bona fide "wrong" claim which is not a "false" claim

The addition by way of disallowing the depreciation claimed has rightly been made in the quantum proceedings which fact has been accepted by the assessee by filing a revised return and not agitating the issue further. Considering the explanation offered …

Poysha Goyal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 5 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 8, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Explanation that bona fide mistake was committed on advice of CA is a reasonable one as per Explanation 1B of s. 271(1) and does not attract penalty

When there is no attempt on the part of the assessee to show the Long Term Capital Gain in a different category then merely because a concessional rate of tax was applied in the revised return does not ifso facto …

ACIT vs. Cecilia Haresh Chaganlal (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 16, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 8, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Apart from falsity of the explanation, the department must have cogent material or evidence from which it could be inferred that assessee has consciously concealed particulars of income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income

As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khode Easwar 83 ITR 369 the penalty proceedings being penal in character, the Revenue itself has to establish that the receipt of the amount undisputedly constitute income of …

G. K. Properties Pvt. Limited vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Read More »